Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

... We have evidence of advanced monument builders, agriculture, and sciency poop. Then they covered it up, and built similar less impressive stuff on top of it.

What artefacts do we have exhibiting "sciency poop"? What does that expression mean, anyway? Are you referring to advanced technology? What relics of advanced technology do we have in thr archaeological record of these cultures?

You will be aware that impressive monuments, of admirable "style", are within the capabilities even of societies which have no access to advanced technology. In the case of Peru, neither writing nor effective metallurgy were in use, but magnificent architecture was nonetheless achieved, prior to the European conquest. What is required for these constructions is organisation of a Labour force, and associated logistics. These were present in the earliest civilisations.

You will recall also that regression of style and reduction in scale of monument building, as exhibited by the later Egyptian pyramids, is perfectly normal, even if there is no general regression of technology.

Pitfalls, setbacks, degradation in difficulty to create advancement, are caused by 'disruptions'...they could be internal or external.

Then you can prove your point at once by showing me the remains of any "better technology" object from the archaeological record of the cultures of interest to you.

I can define "gets better" as a descriptor of technological progress, but what is the "desired state of perfection" towards which technology normally "evolves" according to you? I don't know what this means, and I can't think of an example of any place where it has been reached. Here you use muddled language..

Quote:

In the case of GT, the site's remains feature a perfectly preserved point of 'highly advanced building techniques'...

Here you are referring to building techniques, but in what sense they are advanced you don't tell us. You bring in the word "perfectly" but you're referring to preservation, not level of technology.

I have adduced the phenomenon of regression of building technique from ancient Egypt. Later pyramids are less impressive by far than the early peak. Later artwork on Greek coins is less admirable stylistically than on some earlier pieces, and Roman coinage reached a stylle climax around the time of Nero in the first century CE and then regressed very significantly. The Arch of Constantine is poorer in quality than are similar monuments erected by his predecessors. One can give similar examples almost without limit.

Okay, let's look at how we date pyramids...the "bent" pyramid is generally accepted to be one of the first, because the technology was not yet perfected...its initial design was too steep, causing the bottom to crumble... Those that came after did not suffer this defect. This we might assume, was "progression" because the buildings became more sound, more structurally impressive.

At GT, the first oldest ruins, are "bigger," more detailed, and thus required a larger workforce to complete.

One sees a very early progression of teshnology, which reaches a plateau with the traditional pyramid type. At this point the largest pyramids are constructed, and thereafter the size and impressiveness of the architectural genre declines. Many are subsequently built, all smaller and less impressive that that of Cheops. Or do you deny that these smaller pyramids are later? If so, please be explicit, and we can discuss that claim.

A "larger workforce" doesn't imply a more advanced technology. Let us observe that the army of Napoleon was larger than the US army in 1940. Does that prove Napoleon had more advanced military technology at his disposal than did Franklin Roosevelt? No. Napoleon has flintlock muskets and horses, while Roosevelt has machine guns and tanks; artefacts available only to advanced technological societies.

That's why I ask you to refer me to any advanced artefact, and I will concede your point immediately. Where are they? All you tell me is, they had lots of workers and they could erect big stones. And that proves nothing except the presence of a structure of central command and logistics, which everyone knows they had, in spite of their relatively primitive technology.

Well, "the presence of a structure of central command and logistics" is already pretty astounding at 12000 years ago, which is why GT is such an interesting site.

The suggestion that perhaps agriculture arose earlier than we thought and thus these monuments were the creation of a stone age agricultural civilisation seems to be at least interesting enough to pursue. I think that's where the line of reasoning of "large workforce = advanced technology" should lead: here advanced technology basically = agriculture.

The problem is that that's how a reasonable person would read that sort of claim, and it's already a bit revolutionary. I think we have genetic evidence as well as agricultural evidence that puts some bounds on the beginnings of agriculture, though I'm not sure if GT falls within that range. But Hancock sometimes seems to be saying no more than this (that there was an agricultural civilisation predating GT) and sometimes seems to be saying something [i]much[/] less likely. The problem is that there's a conflation of different meanings of "advanced" technology in the way he speaks.

I'd also like to point out that while I can see an argument that these sorts of monuments required a large workforce and logistics that in turn require agriculture, I don't think we can be so sure. The region in which they were built was relatively rich in foodstuffs even from the perspective of hunter gatherers, and as evidenced in Japan and the Pacific Northwest of North America hunter gatherer societies can become very complex when living in habitat with abundant food sources.

__________________"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

What artefacts do we have exhibiting "sciency poop"? What does that expression mean, anyway? Are you referring to advanced technology? What relics of advanced technology do we have in thr archaeological record of these cultures?

You will be aware that impressive monuments, of admirable "style", are within the capabilities even of societies which have no access to advanced technology. In the case of Peru, neither writing nor effective metallurgy were in use, but magnificent architecture was nonetheless achieved, prior to the European conquest. What is required for these constructions is organisation of a Labour force, and associated logistics. These were present in the earliest civilisations.

You will recall also that regression of style and reduction in scale of monument building, as exhibited by the later Egyptian pyramids, is perfectly normal, even if there is no general regression of technology.

Upon "sciency poop":

Now and again, I use terms I've heard from others, that made me smile, "face hole," "head organ"...in regards to "sciency poop" it means...the numbers, astronomical alignments, knowledge of earth's place in the universe and our solar system, agriculture, the knowledge of fractions, zero, hydraulics, stone cutting descending squares into diorite, lifting 100 ton stone blocks...that sort of thing.

I think attributing ruins like those at Puma Punku to copper and bronze chiseled force with no written language is a thought from someone who has never worked stone with hand tools. I've carved into granite with a carbide tipped chisel, and then used diamond tipped drumel tools...I can tell you for absolute fact that those ruins, especially the "H" ones were not crafted by bronze or copper chisels...

Then you can prove your point at once by showing me the remains of any "better technology" object from the archaeological record of the cultures of interest to you.

Good grief, I wouldn't know where to start... I could point to hundreds of examples. Try searching on youtube for "top 5 unexplainable ancient artifacts"...

Originally Posted by Craig B

I can define "gets better" as a descriptor of technological progress, but what is the "desired state of perfection" towards which technology normally "evolves" according to you? I don't know what this means, and I can't think of an example of any place where it has been reached. Here you use muddled language.. Here you are referring to building techniques, but in what sense they are advanced you don't tell us. You bring in the word "perfectly" but you're referring to preservation, not level of technology.

Improvements are half-steps towards a state of perceived perfection...you never quite get there.

The ruins of GT get more impressive, the deeper/older you go. It would be like finding a Shelby Cobra under and old Model T factory parts dump. The oldest ruins at GT, that date to the younger dryas, are more evolved that the newest ones.

Originally Posted by Craig B

I have adduced the phenomenon of regression of building technique from ancient Egypt. Later pyramids are less impressive by far than the early peak. Later artwork on Greek coins is less admirable stylistically than on some earlier pieces, and Roman coinage reached a stylle climax around the time of Nero in the first century CE and then regressed very significantly. The Arch of Constantine is poorer in quality than are similar monuments erected by his predecessors. One can give similar examples almost without limit.

Well, "the presence of a structure of central command and logistics" is already pretty astounding at 12000 years ago, which is why GT is such an interesting site.

The suggestion that perhaps agriculture arose earlier than we thought and thus these monuments were the creation of a stone age agricultural civilisation seems to be at least interesting enough to pursue. I think that's where the line of reasoning of "large workforce = advanced technology" should lead: here advanced technology basically = agriculture.

The problem is that that's how a reasonable person would read that sort of claim, and it's already a bit revolutionary. I think we have genetic evidence as well as agricultural evidence that puts some bounds on the beginnings of agriculture, though I'm not sure if GT falls within that range. But Hancock sometimes seems to be saying no more than this (that there was an agricultural civilisation predating GT) and sometimes seems to be saying something [i]much[/] less likely. The problem is that there's a conflation of different meanings of "advanced" technology in the way he speaks.

I'd also like to point out that while I can see an argument that these sorts of monuments required a large workforce and logistics that in turn require agriculture, I don't think we can be so sure. The region in which they were built was relatively rich in foodstuffs even from the perspective of hunter gatherers, and as evidenced in Japan and the Pacific Northwest of North America hunter gatherer societies can become very complex when living in habitat with abundant food sources.

Good response, thank you for your time and consideration.

I think, 'workforce' was one element in the earliest building's characteristics that are astounding. Necessity being the mother of invention, if hunting and gathering WAS effective enough to supply a huge workforce, then there would be no need to develop agriculture.

Shermer said, in the video, "I think your findings only say that hunter gatherers were clearly more capable than we gave them credit."

No... That is just one aspect of an 'advanced culture' lost. Not only were the ruins huge, requiring a massive workforce, but the building techniques themselves were detailed, difficult to erect, and contained more complexity than the newer more recent ones...

I think attributing ruins like those at Puma Punku to copper and bronze chiseled force with no written language is a thought from someone who has never worked stone with hand tools. I've carved into granite with a carbide tipped chisel, and then used diamond tipped drumel tools...I can tell you for absolute fact that those ruins, especially the "H" ones were not crafted by bronze or copper chisels...

What about Egyptian artifacts: sculptures, stelae, and obelisks. Many of them were made in granite, and for lots of these artifacts, we know that they were made with stone or bronze tools. Do you think that is improbable too?

What about Egyptian artifacts: sculptures, stelae, and obelisks. Many of them were made in granite, and for lots of these artifacts, we know that they were made with stone or bronze tools. Do you think that is improbable too?

Yes, I do.

I don't believe we 'know' how many ancient monoliths were crafted, especially those at Puma Punku.

Really? Which ones? You are aware that most pyramids are dated by the Egyptians themselves through inscriptions left behind?

That is interesting, and a source would be appreciated. What dating system did they use? I can't imagine that the GP has a notice inscribed on it telling us: this pyramid was built 2,600 years before the birth of Christ.

Get your popcorn ready for this three-hour extravaganza where Michael Shermer "debates" some "alternative history" people about whether there was some ancient lost civilization that was disrupted by a massive comet, which made the remaining humans revert to hunter-gethererism again after having had great but now lost wisdom.

Hancock is someone I have never heard of before but appears to buy into a lot of obviously silly things. He gets very angry, very quickly and spouts all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about Atlantis and other things. He is sensitive about the way the mainstream of academia have treated his crackpot theories, and he is a master of equivocating on his positions, at one time claiming to only be passing on someone else's theories and refusing to defend them, and at other times clearly pushing the ideas and getting stroppy when they are dismissed.

He also wipes the floor with Shermer, as does Joe Rogan who both rightly (in my opinion) point out Shermer's well-poisoning tactics and his reliance on general principles of argument in lieu of specific knowledge about the subject at hand.

But Hancock really is a crackpot.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Get your popcorn ready for this three-hour extravaganza where Michael Shermer "debates" some "alternative history" people about whether there was some ancient lost civilization that was disrupted by a massive comet, which made the remaining humans revert to hunter-gethererism again after having had great but now lost wisdom.

Hancock is someone I have never heard of before but appears to buy into a lot of obviously silly things. He gets very angry, very quickly and spouts all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about Atlantis and other things. He is sensitive about the way the mainstream of academia have treated his crackpot theories, and he is a master of equivocating on his positions, at one time claiming to only be passing on someone else's theories and refusing to defend them, and at other times clearly pushing the ideas and getting stroppy when they are dismissed.

He also wipes the floor with Shermer, as does Joe Rogan who both rightly (in my opinion) point out Shermer's well-poisoning tactics and his reliance on general principles of argument in lieu of specific knowledge about the subject at hand.

But Hancock really is a crackpot.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Really? I wouldn't have thought it was even worth a three-hour debate. That's as long as it took Gilligan and the Skipper to get shipwrecked, and about as scientifically valid.....

I didn't think Shermer got 'wiped'. It looked more to me that the others showed their lack of knowledge of basic science, which seems to be typical in these sort of situations.

But, to give the Devil his due, even though it is not common knowledge, because public schools do not teach this, Primitive Cultures were not exactly as 'primitive' as most would have you believe. Very basic geometry principles, basic math, the passage of time, mechanical leverage, and other basic mechanical ideas were caught on to very early in the development of civilization, even if they did not have actual names for them, or a formal structure. They even had a basic understanding of medicine, and public health. Primitive people had the exact same level of reasoning (maybe even more so...) and common-sense that we do today. They just applied it differently, within the bounds of the available technology of the time. They didn't have Macs or PCs back then, but the abacus is so old, we don't even know when it was invented, but we know for a fact it was in common use almost world-wide as far back as 5000 years, even before a written numerical system was invented. And it would be thousands of years before Rolex would begin to produce over-priced watches, but sun-dials, and sand-dials were in common use as far back as 3000 years, and probably even older. Water clocks were around even longer, as much as 6000+ years ago. So, the ancients had a good basic knowledge of the concept of time, quantity, math, geometry, leverage, potential and kinetic energy, etc...., all the basic building blocks of most forms of technology, and engineering. The only difference between us and them was simply they way they chose to employ the concepts. They lived within their world, and we live within ours.

That is interesting, and a source would be appreciated. What dating system did they use? I can't imagine that the GP has a notice inscribed on it telling us: this pyramid was built 2,600 years before the birth of Christ.

Of course not. I used the term "dating" in the context of this thread. The Egyptians were very liberal with inscriptions telling us for which king the pyramids and their adjoining temples were built. If not, we would have used place names instead of the royal names for the pyramids.

That is interesting, and a source would be appreciated. What dating system did they use? I can't imagine that the GP has a notice inscribed on it telling us: this pyramid was built 2,600 years before the birth of Christ.

In the October 2017 issue of Scientific American, Graham Hancock, writes a letter to the editor complaining about a recent column of Michael Shermer. Shermer gets the opportunity to reply, and I think it tells his position on Hancock very well:

Quote:

[...] In my opinion, Hancock's idea is based entirely on negative evidence - what he thinks is wrong with the accepted archaeological timeline - and he offers no positive evidence of his purported lost civilization: no metal, no writing, no tools and not even pottery.

In the October 2017 issue of Scientific American, Graham Hancock, writes a letter to the editor complaining about a recent column of Michael Shermer. Shermer gets the opportunity to reply, and I think it tells his position on Hancock very well:

With due respect, I believe that comment was made 'before' this exchange.

Personally, I'm not the best person to ask, as I'm not in the habit of dating sphinxes and don't have the skills for the job. But if you're going to cite a date, on what do your sources base that date, and what makes you think these sources are the most reliable?

After the debate/discussion he said Hancock and his cohort were both "well reasoned and well researched."

I do not think he changed his mind. I do not have the precise text in front of me now, but Shermer starts by saying something similar that Hancock is well researched and um probably well reasoned, but he continues with my quote that Hancock only presents negative evidence. Hancock has nothing to support his own theory; we are supposed to believe that if there is something wrong with the established archaeology, then Hancock's theory is the only one viable, which is of course dead wrong, particularly because an earlier civilisation would have left lots of stuff around for us to find apart from the big monuments.

I suppose the 'lost civilisation' could have done a lot of recycling.
But I would have thought it wasn't much of a civilisation if all evidence apart from a few monoliths enddd up destroyed by a flood.

I suppose the 'lost civilisation' could have done a lot of recycling.
But I would have thought it wasn't much of a civilisation if all evidence apart from a few monoliths enddd up destroyed by a flood.

Yes, and floods also deposits its debris somewhere, so it can be found.

I do not think he changed his mind. I do not have the precise text in front of me now, but Shermer starts by saying something similar that Hancock is well researched and um probably well reasoned, but he continues with my quote that Hancock only presents negative evidence. Hancock has nothing to support his own theory; we are supposed to believe that if there is something wrong with the established archaeology, then Hancock's theory is the only one viable, which is of course dead wrong, particularly because an earlier civilisation would have left lots of stuff around for us to find apart from the big monuments.

Are microspherials negative evidence?

Are the scablands negative evidence?

Maybe you could give me another example negative evidence, and how that squares with Shermer saying someone is well researched and well reasoned?

I suppose the 'lost civilisation' could have done a lot of recycling.
But I would have thought it wasn't much of a civilisation if all evidence apart from a few monoliths enddd up destroyed by a flood.